Vol. 42 (2): 223-233, March - April, 2016
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0385
Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in high prostate volume cases: impact on oncological and functional results _______________________________________________ Sciarra Alessandro 1, Gentilucci Alessandro 1, Cattarino Susanna 1, Innocenzi Michele 1, Di Quilio Francesca 1, Fasulo Andrea 2, Magnus Von heland 1, Gentile Vincenzo 1, Salciccia Stefano 1 Dipartimento di Urologia - Unità della prostata, Università La Sapienza, Roma, Italia; 2 Istituto Nazionale Italiano di Statistica - Ricercatore di Statistica, Roma, Italia
1
ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO ______________________________________________________________
______________________
Background and objective: To prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume. Materials and Methods: From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) and a prostate volume>70cc identified for radical prostatectomy (RP), were prospectively analyzed in our institute. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic (LP) approach. In our population, 54 cases were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. We analyzed the association of the surgical technique with perioperative, oncological and postoperative functional parameters. Results: In those high prostate volume cases, the surgical technique (laparoscopic versus open) does not represent a significant independent factor able to influence positive surgical margins rates and characteristics (p=0.4974). No significant differences (p>0.05) in the overall rates of positive margins was found, and also no differences following stratification according to the pathological stage and nerve sparing (NS) procedure. The surgical technique was able to significantly and independently influence the hospital stay, time of operation and blood loss (p0.05). Conclusions: In our prospective non randomized analysis on high prostate volumes, the laparoscopic approach to RP is able to guarantee the same oncological and functional results of an open approach, maintaining the advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes.
Key words: Laparoscopy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Surgical Procedures, Operative
INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic (LP) prostatectomy has become a common treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer (PC). Non randomized studies compared the laparoscopic with the open
Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42: 223-33
_____________________ Submitted for publication: July 17, 2015 _____________________ Accepted after revision: November 16, 2015
approach for radical prostatectomy (RP) (1-4). A large population-based study found similar oncological and functional results comparing the two techniques (5), whereas other investigations have found significant differences (6, 7). Several aspects could contribute to these different results, such as
223
ibju | Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results
selection of patients, methods of analysis and also surgeon/center experience in RP. The choice of the surgical technique for localized PC is in part based on personal preference. However, some considerations such as age, preoperative status, staging and grading may influence choice of modality. Each patient presents with a unique set of characteristics that could influence the technique of RP regardless of the approach (1-4). Prostate volume is an important consideration for surgery, particularly when patients have large glands (8). In some studies smaller glands have been associated with high grade disease, more advanced stage and higher rate of positive surgical margins (9-11). On the other hand the difficulty of dissecting a large prostate gland has been recognized since the early history of RP (12). The surgical and technical impact of prostate size could be more relevant in the LP (13), probably because larger prostates decrease visualization of the surgical field when performing the laparoscopic approach. The objective of this study was to prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume either in terms of oncological or functional results. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study design and population From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized PC and a prostate volume>70cc identified for RP, were prospectively analyzed in our institute. This sample was part of a population of 296 cases with clinically localized PC selected for RP. All patients provided informed consent and the study was approved by our institutional review board. Inclusion criteria were an histological diagnosis of PC at biopsy, clinically defined T1c-T2N0M0 stage and a prostate volume>70cc. All cases accepted the surgical option as primary treatment. Exclusion criteria were prior surgery at bladder or prostate level, neoadjuvant treatments (hormonal or radiation therapies), contraindications for surgical treatment.
Patient demographics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. In particular prostate volume was measured preoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the widely recognized prostate ellipsoid method (11) and only cases with values>70cc were included in this analysis. Preoperatively all cases were submitted to a multiparametric MRI for staging and decision making for a nerve sparing procedure. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. In our population of 120 cases, 54 were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. The preoperative assessment of all patients included detailed patient history, clinical examination, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement, prostate volume determination at MRI, prostate biopsy findings, Gleason score assessment, imaging studies (MRI and bone scan or PET-CT scan). Only cases with clinical T2N0M0 staging were included. Surgical technique All cases were submitted to RP by a surgeon with 10 years of experience with open RP (more than 100 cases performed) and 5 years with LP (more than 50 cases performed). The choice between the open or laparoscopic approach was discussed with the patient but no specific selection was performed regarding the surgical approach. Fifty-five cases were submitted to a standard open retropubic RP as previously described (13), and 65 to a standard intraperitoneal laparoscopic RP as previously described (14). In none of these cases a lymph-node dissection was performed. The decision for a intrafascial nerve sparing (NS) (monolateral or bilateral) procedure was homogeneously considered in all cases regardless on the surgical technique and included preoperative status of the patient, biopsy findings and imaging (MRI) results. In particular a bilateral intrafascial NS procedure was performed in sexually active cases with a PSA level
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0385
Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in high prostate volume cases: impact on oncological and functional results _______________________________________________ Sciarra Alessandro 1, Gentilucci Alessandro 1, Cattarino Susanna 1, Innocenzi Michele 1, Di Quilio Francesca 1, Fasulo Andrea 2, Magnus Von heland 1, Gentile Vincenzo 1, Salciccia Stefano 1 Dipartimento di Urologia - Unità della prostata, Università La Sapienza, Roma, Italia; 2 Istituto Nazionale Italiano di Statistica - Ricercatore di Statistica, Roma, Italia
1
ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO ______________________________________________________________
______________________
Background and objective: To prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume. Materials and Methods: From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized prostate cancer (PC) and a prostate volume>70cc identified for radical prostatectomy (RP), were prospectively analyzed in our institute. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic (LP) approach. In our population, 54 cases were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. We analyzed the association of the surgical technique with perioperative, oncological and postoperative functional parameters. Results: In those high prostate volume cases, the surgical technique (laparoscopic versus open) does not represent a significant independent factor able to influence positive surgical margins rates and characteristics (p=0.4974). No significant differences (p>0.05) in the overall rates of positive margins was found, and also no differences following stratification according to the pathological stage and nerve sparing (NS) procedure. The surgical technique was able to significantly and independently influence the hospital stay, time of operation and blood loss (p0.05). Conclusions: In our prospective non randomized analysis on high prostate volumes, the laparoscopic approach to RP is able to guarantee the same oncological and functional results of an open approach, maintaining the advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes.
Key words: Laparoscopy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Surgical Procedures, Operative
INTRODUCTION Laparoscopic (LP) prostatectomy has become a common treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer (PC). Non randomized studies compared the laparoscopic with the open
Int Braz J Urol. 2016; 42: 223-33
_____________________ Submitted for publication: July 17, 2015 _____________________ Accepted after revision: November 16, 2015
approach for radical prostatectomy (RP) (1-4). A large population-based study found similar oncological and functional results comparing the two techniques (5), whereas other investigations have found significant differences (6, 7). Several aspects could contribute to these different results, such as
223
ibju | Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: oncological and functional results
selection of patients, methods of analysis and also surgeon/center experience in RP. The choice of the surgical technique for localized PC is in part based on personal preference. However, some considerations such as age, preoperative status, staging and grading may influence choice of modality. Each patient presents with a unique set of characteristics that could influence the technique of RP regardless of the approach (1-4). Prostate volume is an important consideration for surgery, particularly when patients have large glands (8). In some studies smaller glands have been associated with high grade disease, more advanced stage and higher rate of positive surgical margins (9-11). On the other hand the difficulty of dissecting a large prostate gland has been recognized since the early history of RP (12). The surgical and technical impact of prostate size could be more relevant in the LP (13), probably because larger prostates decrease visualization of the surgical field when performing the laparoscopic approach. The objective of this study was to prospectively compare the laparoscopic versus open approach to RP in cases with high prostate volume and to evaluate a possible different impact of prostate volume either in terms of oncological or functional results. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study design and population From March 2007 to March 2013 a total of 120 cases with clinically localized PC and a prostate volume>70cc identified for RP, were prospectively analyzed in our institute. This sample was part of a population of 296 cases with clinically localized PC selected for RP. All patients provided informed consent and the study was approved by our institutional review board. Inclusion criteria were an histological diagnosis of PC at biopsy, clinically defined T1c-T2N0M0 stage and a prostate volume>70cc. All cases accepted the surgical option as primary treatment. Exclusion criteria were prior surgery at bladder or prostate level, neoadjuvant treatments (hormonal or radiation therapies), contraindications for surgical treatment.
Patient demographics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were prospectively collected and analyzed. In particular prostate volume was measured preoperatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the widely recognized prostate ellipsoid method (11) and only cases with values>70cc were included in this analysis. Preoperatively all cases were submitted to a multiparametric MRI for staging and decision making for a nerve sparing procedure. Patients were offered as surgical technique either an open retropubic or an intraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. In our population of 120 cases, 54 were submitted to LP and 66 to open RP. The preoperative assessment of all patients included detailed patient history, clinical examination, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurement, prostate volume determination at MRI, prostate biopsy findings, Gleason score assessment, imaging studies (MRI and bone scan or PET-CT scan). Only cases with clinical T2N0M0 staging were included. Surgical technique All cases were submitted to RP by a surgeon with 10 years of experience with open RP (more than 100 cases performed) and 5 years with LP (more than 50 cases performed). The choice between the open or laparoscopic approach was discussed with the patient but no specific selection was performed regarding the surgical approach. Fifty-five cases were submitted to a standard open retropubic RP as previously described (13), and 65 to a standard intraperitoneal laparoscopic RP as previously described (14). In none of these cases a lymph-node dissection was performed. The decision for a intrafascial nerve sparing (NS) (monolateral or bilateral) procedure was homogeneously considered in all cases regardless on the surgical technique and included preoperative status of the patient, biopsy findings and imaging (MRI) results. In particular a bilateral intrafascial NS procedure was performed in sexually active cases with a PSA level
